Hello, noobie.
If it is settled law, then why are Democratic-socialist lawyers, like Sarah Herlihy, demanding Article II, Section 1, be changed?
Here’s why - when the Court held that Virginia Minor was a citizen under Article 2, Section 1, because she was born in the US of citizen parents, that definition became national law. It is United States law, period.
* * * * * * * * * * *
AMENDING THE NATURAL BORN CITIZEN REQUIREMENT: GLOBALIZATION AS THE IMPETUS AND THE OBSTACLE by SARAH P. HERLIHY
INTRODUCTION
The natural born citizen requirement in Article II of the United States Constitution has been called the “stupidest provision” in the Constitution, “undecidedly un-American [sic],” “blatantly discriminatory,” and the “Constitution’s worst provision.” Since Arnold Schwarzenegger’s victory in the California gubernatorial recall election of 2003, commentators and policymakers have once again started to discuss whether Article II of the United States Constitution should be amended to render naturalized citizens eligible for the presidency.
...Although these sixty-two words are far from extraordinary, the natural born citizen provision is controversial because it prevents over 12.8 million Americans from being eligible for the presidency.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Ms.Herlihy, in the title and body of her paper, gave the game away, noobie.
This is about destroying the United State of America so as to establish a socialist utopia under the rubric of Globalism.
All those items you mentioned are meaningless, because there is a huge gulf between ‘citizen’ and ‘natural born citizen’.
You can find the definitions of ‘citizen’ and ‘citizenship’ as recognized by the Feds here:
U.S.Citizenship & Immigration Services - Citizenship
(There is no mention of natural born citizenship because it isn’t a statutory type of citizenship.)
Natural born citizen ONLY appears in U.S.law, specifically in the U.S.Constitution, as an eligibility requirement to be President. It is an eligibility requirement, like being age 35 or being a resident in the U.S. for the past fifteen years.
No one has the right to be President. One must be eligible.
“Hello, noobie.
If it is settled law, then why are Democratic-socialist lawyers, like Sarah Herlihy, demanding Article II, Section 1, be changed?
Here’s why - when the Court held that Virginia Minor was a citizen under Article 2, Section 1, because she was born in the US of citizen parents, that definition became national law. It is United States law, period.”
Hi there, oldbie!
“Settled law” can be changed by a new decision of the Supreme Court at any time. Whenver the Constitution is amended, it revises what was settled law.
For example the Framers prohibited taxing personal incomes. In 1913, the 16th Amendment was ratified and the federal personal income tax became the law of the land.
The Roberts court is obviously unimpressed with Minor v Happersett being “stare decisis” for Article II, Section 1 eligibility. They have already rejected hearing appeals that attempted to use Minor as a precedent in the briefs submitted for Kerchner v Obama and Hollister v Soetoro.
Minor was a women’s suffrage appeal under an interpretation of the 14th Amendment that had nothing to do with presidential eligibility. Virginia Minor wanted to be able to vote and thought that the 14th Amendment gave her that right.